Short Summary
Starbucks and Pi‑Design have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,695,486 and jointly seek to keep the settlement confidential under statutory provisions.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025‑01178 concerning U.S. Patent 8,695,486, Starbucks Corporation and patent owner Pi‑Design AG have reached a settlement. The parties filed a joint motion requesting that the settlement agreement, filed as Exhibit 1028, be treated as business‑confidential information pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). They contend the settlement contains no patentability‑relevant material and should be kept separate from the patent file, accessible only upon a showing of good cause.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Starbucks Corporation et al. vs Pi-Design AG et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck requests Director Review to deny institution of a PTAB post‑grant review of Halozyme’s ‘262 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing the Board misapplied eligibility rules and imported a functional limitation into the claim construction.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting lack of written description and enablement. The reply argues the claims cover an unmanageable genus of mutants and cites case law to support unpatentability.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB held that Apple’s wearable physiological measurement claims were obvious over prior‑art pulse‑oximetry references, rendering all challenged claims unpatentable. The decision relied on Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer teachings.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent (11,108,639) in the PTAB, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claims related to wireless scheduling mechanisms are unpatentable over combinations of Fakoorian-1 and Takahashi. This sets up a major IP battle regarding advanced cellular technology standards.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on remand, holding that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent are unpatentable. The Board relied on an obviousness analysis over a combination of prior‑art references and affirmed the claim construction of “identify an object.”
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.